9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the reference to arbitration. 2. Consideration of the letter dated 15-7-1996. 3. Finding on the shortage of 1350 M.T. versus 350 M.T. Analysis: 1. Scope of the Reference to Arbitration The appellants contended that the arbitrator's award was beyond the scope of the reference to arbitration, particularly concerning claims arising from the second shipment. The court noted that the appellants did not raise any objection regarding the scope of dispute for arbitration before the arbitrator. The arbitrator framed issues based on the pleadings, including the second shipment, and the appellants did not object to this. The court emphasized that the scope of arbitration could extend beyond the initial reference by consent, either expressly or impliedly, through pleadings. Section 7(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, supports this by allowing arbitration agreements to be in writing through various means, including statements of claim and defense. The court concluded that the appellants had waived any objection to the inclusion of the second shipment by not raising it timely before the arbitrator. 2. Consideration of the Letter Dated 15-7-1996 The appellants argued that the arbitrator failed to consider the letter dated 15-7-1996, which they claimed would have influenced the conclusions. The court found that the letter, written after the agreement was finalized and acted upon, did not indicate any modification of the agreed terms. The letter merely expressed doubts about achieving the agreed pumping rate but did not alter the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) finalized on 30-5-1996. The court held that the letter did not impact the agreement's terms and thus did not affect the arbitrator's conclusions. 3. Finding on the Shortage of 1350 M.T. versus 350 M.T. The appellants contended that the shortage in loading was only 350 M.T. instead of 1350 M.T. as found by the arbitrator. They referred to a shipper's communication dated 1-8-1996, indicating that the vessel was to receive 19,000 M.T. of molasses, but only 18,619.589 M.T. was shipped. The court noted that the agreed quantity to be loaded should be ascertained from the charter party document, which was not referred to by the appellants. The letter dated 1-8-1996 could not replace the primary evidence provided by the charter party document. Therefore, the court found no fault with the arbitrator's finding on the shortage. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the grounds of challenge raised by the appellants. The arbitrator had acted within the scope of the reference, the letter dated 15-7-1996 did not alter the agreed terms, and the finding on the shortage was supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
